Equity

Equity 1

1. The Court should deny Corrosive Chemicals motion because Phillips should be allowed a fair jury trial. Contempt fines for widespread, ongoing, out of court violations of a complex injunction constitute criminal sanctions entitling the penalized party to a jury trial. (Int. Union, United Mine Workers v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 1984). Phillips as well a Corrosive Chemicals’ are entitled to a jury trial because of mandatory due process requirements. A court is likely to give Phillips his jury trial demand because both parties are entitled to that to ensure a fair trial.

2. The court should hold both Corrosive Chemicals and Toxic Champ Company in contempt for violating a court order. Toxic Champ was a subsidiary corporation of Corrosive Chemicals and manufactures the same way as Corrosive Chemicals. An injunction is not binding upon non parties to the action unless such persons are in active concert or participating with the parties violating the injunction. (United Pharmaceutical Corp. v. United States, 1962). In the instant case, Corrosive Chemicals was ordered to cease all operations until it had complied with the EPA’s emission control standards. Corrosive Chemicals willfully disobeyed the judge’s order by continuing its operations at another facility located elsewhere inside the state. Toxic Champ was in active concert and participating with the actual party, Corrosive Chemicals, in order to keep manufacturing running in a different location. It is a moot point that Toxic Champ is helping Corrosive Chemicals continue its violations that were supposed to be ceased. Both parties should be held in contempt and ordered to stop its operations mainly for the safety to the public and the environment. Even a person who is not mentioned or described in an injunction order may be convicted of contempt of court if he willfully assists in the performance of the acts prohibited